tslink

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove a gateway route

portal_route_remove

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes an app's gateway route and refuses portal-only apps, requiring app removal instead. HTTP MCP writes must include the current portal owner.

Instructions

Remove an app's gateway route. Refuses portal-only apps; remove the app instead. HTTP MCP requires the current portal owner in the write transaction.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "portal_route_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`portal`	Yes
`routes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 27, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / portal / properties / message
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / portal / properties / unavailable_apps
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding what they don't: a refusal case for portal-only apps and an authorization requirement (current portal owner in the write transaction for HTTP MCP). These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the refusal rule and the auth note. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and safety traits are annotation-covered. The description covers the refusal case and auth requirement; the only real hole is the unresolved identifier format for the app parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description never clarifies what "app" accepts — a name, slug, numeric ID, or domain. With only minLength:1 in the schema, the agent has no way to construct a valid value from the definition alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Remove an app's gateway route." That is clearly distinct from the add/list route siblings without needing to name them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with portal_route_add or portal_route_list, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit exclusion plus the correct alternative: "Refuses portal-only apps; remove the app instead." That is real when-not guidance. What's missing is any positive precondition (e.g. when a route exists vs. when to use portal_disable), so it isn't a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.